Click here to see "which Sunday" it is (The Proper of Seasons for the Latin Mass).

Wednesday, April 26, 2006

A Tale Of Two HeadlinesThere they were, hiding in plain sight

I went to the Catholic World News site and two stories literally jumped off the monitor at me.

The first one was concerning the modern day Judas, "Father" Iggy O'Donovan, as he defended his decision to "concelebrate" Mass with a heretical Church of Ireland minister.

The second one concerns the Superior General of the SSPX, Bishop Fellay, asking that The Holy Father "re-examine the Vatican II teachings".

First things first... the 'concelebration' in Ireland simply wasn't illicit (as CWS stated). It was invalid. It's simply impossible for someone who denies transubstantiation to transubstantiate (concelebrate). Sheesh... this really isn't that hard to figure out. Think about it, can someone who denies Sacramental Confession, validly hear your Confession? Of course not. Denying Sacramental Confession is a heresy. Just like denying transubstantiation.

Now we come to the statement of Bishop Fellay. There is nothing wrong with asking to re-examine the teachings of the Second Vatican Council. Especially in light that precious little from V2 is dogma (just the Dogmatic Constitution of The Church, that's it). Everything else within V2 is wide open for debate, discussion, even nullification.

And you don't have to be a Traditional Catholic to realize that... every Catholic should know this. But for almost 40 years, we have had the 'Spirit of Vatican II' shoved down our throats as if it was binding upon pain of sin. And it just ain't so.

This isn't simply a case of "a few poorly worded graphs" as you put it. The non dogmatic documents of V2 are rife with ambiguity and loop-holes so big you can drive a Mack truck through them.

Also, it suprizes me the number of folks who fail to realize that there WERE errors in The Church prior to V2... it's just that back then, folks didn't try to disguise error, scandal and flat-out heresy as correct theology.

The "smaller purer Cahtolicism" may be attractive to those of use who are simply tired of coping with the liberals, dissenters, and heretics in the Church, but I don't think we have much hope of that. Jesus taught that the weeds will continue to grow up with the grain, and will only be seperated come the harvest.

Fencing with the nominal Catholics may just be the cross we have to bear.

Hey, Caveman! You need to outfit your place with a few more books! ;-) In point of fact, ANY validly ordained priest or bishop can validly consecrate the Holy Eucharist or (under specific conditions) absolve from sins, even if he flat-out denies Catholic teaching on the Sacraments and should roast over an open flame at the hands of a Catholic monarchy.

All which is required, is that the priest intend to do what the Church does. That intention is measured only objectively, i.e., by whether he uses proper form and matter in a serious manner, and in a context of prayer, as St. Thomas Aquinas explains, and the Council of Trent taught. He can believe all day long that it's just a piece of bread or a counselling session, but what he does is the key factor.

Petrus,I agree with everything you wrote. I think where you misunderstand me, is when I pojnted out that good ol' Presider Iggy obviously denies transubstantiation. But that's just my take on his actions.